The way I see it, the "effect" which basso inquired was minimal and cosmetic. Look, the bill was passed unanimously in the Senate and signed by President Bush without any objection. You may call that piece of Obama-cosponsored work an evidence of Obama's ability to stoke bi-partisan support. But in reality it means nothing, probably not even a slap on the wrist. The fact that not even a single Senator from either party rejected it suggests the bill affects not in the slightest everybody's way of doing his/her business of raising money. Like I said in another thread regarding the same topic, in this information age, there is no way you can hide from the public significant campaign contribution from any special interest group. Professional or amateur journalists everywhere vying for Pulitzer Prize in investigative reporting are on the look out 24x7 for every dirty little secret a candidate does not want you to know. There are two questions here: 1) even though the figures are listed on government websites, would an average Joe voter bother to check them out? 2) on the other hand, if campaign finance details are not readily or fully provided by government, would it deter a fact-finding minded voter from learning more about the candidates through, say, googling? My answer to both question is NO.
Actually the fact that it was passed without any objection it speaks exactly to what Obama has been saying all along. There is more that unites us than divides us. While old politics focuses on issues that divide and separate he's going to get things done by focusing on the stuff that we have in common. Yes, the bill has changed things, and the effect is evident. Of the three major candidates this time, only one was largely beholden to special interests for their funds. That is an improvement over past elections. Is it completely fixed? Of course not. Was something accomplished leading toward change? Yes. As far as the average Joe voter checking them, that isn't as important as the media being able to easily access them so that they can then spread the word to the average Joe voter.
obama critic: man these obama supporters think this guy can split the red sea wnes: man that's nothing, its already been done before and it wasn't even jesus, it was moses, this guy's a fraud boy this sure has been fun
The only real, tangible change that Barack Obama has ever affected over the course of his political career is the angle of my squat as I readjust myself on the toilet after painfully listening to yet another one of his platitude filled, drama queen sermons and ensuing sploogefests from cable broadcasters and cult groupies.
Trader_Jorge, once you find your bowel movements affected by a candidate, you can only deny for so long that he has deeply penetrated your subconscious. Indeed, he is lodged firmly in your brainstem, part of even unconscious reactions, flinches, and sphincter contractions. Trader_Jorge, Barack H. Obama owns you.
Trader_Jorge, 11 days ago: So Hillary is about to pick up a 600-delegate advantage over Obama and a boatload of momentum.
What could be great news for Obama and the Democratic Party... February 8, 2008 Colin Powell may support Democrat or Independent in ‘08 WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican who served under President Bush, said Friday he may not back the GOP presidential nominee in November, telling CNN that “I am keeping my options open at the moment.” “I have voted for members of both parties in the course of my adult life,” Powell, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “And as I said earlier, I will vote for the candidate I think can do the best job for America, whether that candidate is a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent.” Powell also offered praise for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, calling him an “exciting person on the political stage. “He has energized a lot of people in America,” said Powell, who briefly weighed his own run for the White House in the mid-1990s. “He has energized a lot of people around the world. And so I think he is worth listening to and seeing what he stands for.” Powell, who has largely steered clear of politics since leaving the administration in 2004, noted that the next president will need to work to restore America’s standing in the world. “I will ultimately vote for the person I believe brings to the American people the kind of vision the American people want to see for the next four years,” he said. “A vision that reaches out to the rest of the world, that starts to restore confidence in America, that starts to restore favorable ratings to America. Frankly, we've lost a lot in recent years.” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ Impeach Bush.
LOL. I really thank you for that interesting answer. I have only a smattering of German, and didn't recognize egal. And double thanks for not answering the way wnes suggests, luscious peach that he is.
I doubt Colin's Powell's support would help Obama much in the general election. We all know he isn't talking about Hillary based on his past comments about the Clinton administration.
I tend to think Powell was punting the question more than saying he's likely to support Obama, but if he did, it would definitely help Obama in the general election for a couple of reasons. One, it gives him help on the foreign policy credentials front as Powell, right or wrong, is still looked at very favorably in that regard. In all the swing states - Missou, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Iowa, Florida, etc - it gives Obama that extra little edge. Ultimately, if this is a close contest, the election could come down to 1% or less in any of those states. Having an independent, moderate Republican openly supporting him could help with moderates in all those states.
Some interesting stats in a Newsweek poll out this morning, but this one little nugget jumped out at me.
He's using a lot of Obama buzzwords right there. I think Obama his guy, he just doesn't know whether to come out and endorse him or not. He sure knows a lot about why we don't have "favorable ratings."
This is largely true. It is also true that Hillary and Bill have been dishonestly slimed for 16 years so it is hard to separate all the variables. However, you constantly hear words like "strident", "aggressive" used about Hillary and when she laughs heartily it is a "cackle". Are these purely sexist remarks or are they part of the GOP typical branding tactics?-- in which they found Gore "dishonest" bc they say he claimed to have invented the internet. Gore was "boring". Kerry was this, that, Swiftboated.
glynch you need to realize the general election is 5-6 months away and we are still in the thick of the Democratic Party Primary. To bring GOP in this conversation is preposterous. I was never a Hillary fan but I am forced to become a reluctant defender of her lately. Most vicious, vile, and misogynistic attacks on Ms. Clinton come from none other than Obama supporters.
